Setting the Record Straight

Paul LaViolette continues his reality check by countering
misstatements
of fact and outright lies that are being circulated about him
in the press.

Preamble about dogmatic trends in physics and science in general.

Over the years
the physics community has become increasingly dogmatic, ostracizing
anyone who espouses theories different from the dyed-in-the-wool
antiquated concepts that it "sanctifies." Einstein's
theories of special and general relativity, despite their flaws,
are faithfully revered as is Einstein himself, his poster-sized
image frequently adorning the offices of university physics theologians
and their faithful followers. I have nothing against Einstein.
I greatly respect the man and his work. But, heaven
help any free thinking physicist who might point out these flaws
or dare to challenge aspects of the relativistic paradigm. It
is tantamount to professional suicide.
We see the zealous physics establishment even
sticking their noses into the field of engineering to foist their
narrow ideas about what is physically permissible and what is
not. If an inventor develops a novel alternative energy
conversion device and claims that it releases its energy without
consuming a fuel that physicists know about, like coal, oil,
or U-235, then they claim that this inventor is obviously a fraud.
"His claims violate the universal principle of energy
conservation," they shout. Rather than investigate
a new natural phenomenon that does not fit in their theoretical
box, they deny and admonish, and lobby the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office to reject the patents of such upstart inventors. If
inventors are permitted to pursue ideas only within the realm
of the conventional, technologies that do not challenge the rather
limited reach of physical theory, then are they really inventing
anything new? Are they not dotting the "i" for
the tenth time? The implications for the average citizen
are obvious: Technological stagnation, more CO2 build-up, more global warming, higher utility bills,
and more roaming blackouts.
Every dogmatic movement has need of religious
police to ensure that its sacrosanct principles are not violated
and to dole out punishment to those who have the audacity to
challenge the status quo. The American Physical Society
(APS), which at one time was a respectable scholarly society,
has risen to this despicable cause. In the early 1990's,
their Director of Public Information Robert Park began using
his "Whats New" internet news column to launch sarcastic
attacks against scientists who proposed novel ideas that challenged
conventional physics thinking. Cold fusion and Randall
Mills' hydrino theory were among his most favored scapegoats.
In his Washington Post review of Park's book Voodoo
Science, Charles Pratt wrote:

"Park's anger permeates his rebuttals,
which border on character assassination... he violates basic
principles of journalism and science itself by apparently suppressing
information that conflicts with his foregone conclusion....his
widely published attacks create a chilling effect that can discourage
even legitimate scientists from discussing controversial work.
This hardly seems consistent with the spirit of genuinely free
inquiry that should energize science. Likewise, Park's reliance
on second-hand data, his presentation of selective evidence and
his refusal to quote his opponents are habits that seem unworthy
of a scientist."

At the March 1998 American Physical Society
meeting, Peter Zimmerman, one of Park's APS cronies, went so
far as to state to an audience of hundreds of faithful that "he
and Robert Park would work to expose and purge anyone at the
Patent Office who sympathizes with cold fusion;" see Infinite
Energy magazine, vol. 25, 1999. Zimmerman also called
upon the audience to join him in this crusade, and to report
to the highest authorities any rumors about unauthorized research
at their institutions and of groups of more than three people
caught discussing cold fusion. Through strong arm tactics
and outright defamation of its organizers and presenters, Zimmerman
and Park later managed to prevent an alternative energy conference
from being hosted by either the State Department or by the Commerce
Department. This conference happened to include a paper
on cold fusion as well as a few papers on novel energy technologies
that are unexplained by the catechism of conventional physics.
Later, the APS and Park publicly took credit for getting
Tom Valone and myself fired from our jobs at the Patent Office.
Tom Valone was the main organizer of this conference and
I supported his effort by placing a link on my website so that
surfers could find out details about the conference.
Park has since continued his attacks against
me in his What's New column and more recently in Playboy
magazine by making fun of the EEOC's landmark decision which
upheld my right to pursue a civil rights case against the Patent
Office. Using his usual tactics, he has invented "facts"
and twisted the truth to suit his whim, as he pursues his crusade
against cold fusion and other new science. Below I will
try to correct the misinformation that he and others have been
spreading about me and this EEOC decision.

Robert Park spreads disinformation in Playboy Magazine.

In his article entitled
"Screwball" published in the January 2001 issue of
Playboy Magazine, American Physical Society spokesperson
Robert Park underhandedly tries to smear alternative energy technology
by spreading his usual lies. At the end of his article,
he repeatedly twists the truth, repeating distortions that he
presented earlier in his internet "news" gossip column
("What's New") which attempts to publicly diseminate
his outmoded views. He states,

"LaViolette believes in cold
fusion."

Here he tries to make
his readers think that I have a blind belief in this subject,
like someone who throws reason to the wind. In actual fact,
I have no such fixation on cold fusion. I will admit that
I am interested in the field and I do feel it is a very important
area of research like many other areas of science. As for
my approach to science, whether it is a novel theory that is
in a new area being explored, or well accepted dogma of the sort
that Park espouses, I try to maintain a detached perspective.
Unlike Robert Park, I try not to let any preconceived notions
blind my views about the world.
Park then states:

"Actually, he believes in a lot of
stuff. He believes the B-2 stealth bomber uses secret antigravity
technology, reverse-engineered from a crashed flying saucer."

Here Park spreads
more lies. In fact, I have never said anything about the
B-2 using technology that was reverse-engineered from a crashed
flying saucer. The paper I wrote, which is published in
the book Electrogravitics
Systems, suggests that the B-2 utilizes electrogravitic
technology for controlling gravity, or what could be termed "antigravity
technology." But my paper traces the origin of the
B-2's technology to Townsend Brown, an eminent scientist and
inventor who was born in the U.S.A, not on some other star system.
The paper shows that disclosed features of the B-2 conform
closely to ideas published in Brown's 1962 electrokinetics patent.
The book also contains a formerly classified military intelligence
report that I had obtained from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
that describes how in the 1950's leading aerospace companies
were aggressively experimenting with Brown's technology. I
acknowledge that my theories about the B-2's exotic propulsion
system are tentative to the extent that I have no first hand
experience of the plane's classified construction. This
is well understood by people who read my paper. So if Park
wishes to use the word belief here, in the context of blind,
religious belief, he is willfully misleading the public.
Park later continues:

"Convinced that his dismissal had
to do with his belief in cold fusion, LaViolette appealed to
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He argued that belief
in cold fusion should be treated as a protected religious belief."

Again, this is inaccurate.
I did not narrowly focus on cold fusion. In my letter
to the EEOC I stated that I was convinced that I was dismissed
from the PTO because of my unconventional beliefs in cold fusion
and other technologies as well as because of my beliefs related
to novel scientific theories I held and novel theories I published
in my books and on my website. Then I argued that "discrimination
against a person on account of his beliefs is the essence of
discrimination on the basis of religion." From this
standpoint I was arguing that all scientific beliefs should
be under civil rights protection, e.g., as protected religious
belief, including the dogmas that Park so fervently espouses.
Park then concludes:

"In July 2000, the commission upheld
his complaint, in effect ruling that cold fusion is a religion.
This appeared to confirm what many scientists had suspected
all along."

Park's statement that
the EEOC has ruled that "cold fusion is a religion"
is again misleading. Obviously, he tries with twisted logic
to infer "the EEOC says its religion, therefore we were
right all along, cold fusion is a religion!" Let's
get something clear; the only one who is saying that cold fusion
is a religion is Robert Park. Here of course he tries to
create the impression that people interested in cold fusion research
have a blind belief in the subject much like religious fundamentalists.
But if he is looking for religiously fundamentalist beliefs
in physics, he need look no further than his own. After
all Park has been publicly accused of "suppressing information
that conflicts with his foregone conclusion." This
sounds like blind belief to me; doesn't it to you? As for the
EEOC decision, they stated that the complainant (I, Paul LaViolette),
"claims he was terminated and denied the opportunity to
be rehired because of religion, which embodies his cold fusion
beliefs." But note there is a difference between saying
that one's religion "embodies ones cold fusion beliefs"
and saying that "cold fusion is a religion." As
I stated to the Washington Post, there is a connection between
my scientific beliefs and my very deep religious feelings. But
this does not mean that my scientific beliefs are themselves
a rigid and cult-like religion. As I have stated, I ascribe
to the scientific method of holding theories in a condition of
tentativeness and checking their validity against observation.
Also I practice the Socratic method of questioning the
validity of my own views just as I question the validity of those
that the American Physical Society so staunchly advocates.

Smart Money Magazine sacrifices accurate reporting for sarcasm.

"Believe in alien radio signals, cold
fusion and that the zodiac is a cataclysmic message from ancient
humans? Former patent examiner Paul LaViolette does --
and he says it got him canned."

Actually, I never
claimed that my work about pulsar signals being of possible alien
intelligence origin had anything to do with my firing from the
PTO. The other items (cold fusion, and the zodiac), yes.
But alien radio signals? No. My book The Talk of the Galaxy,
which presents evidence that pulsar beacons may be of artificial
origin, was not published until the spring of 2000, a whole year
after I had already left the Patent Office.
The EEOC decision to expand civil rights
law to include protection for scientific beliefs is a victory
for the American worker. It means that people can now sleep
soundly at night without worrying that they might be fired for
espousing unconventional science and technology interests on
their website or in books they may have published. For
the Smart Money magazine writer to demean this decision
and make fun of our civil rights system saying "Rumour is,
the case is now under further investigation by little green men,"
this indicates that he has a rather sour view of worker's rights.
Is "Smart Money" really about employers enslaving
their workers and controlling every aspect of their daily lives?

The Arizona Employment Law Letter muddies the waters.

In his October
2000 article in the Arizona Employment Law Letter entitled
"Is belief in UFOs a protected activity?" Troy Foster
is also a bit off the mark in reporting the facts of my case.
He writes:

"Paul LaViolette worked as a patent
examiner for the federal government until he was fired in April
1999. He contends that he was fired because of his beliefs in
the paranormal, which he posts on his web site."

This is wrong. I do
not have an obsessive belief in cold fusion, and the EEOC never
said that I did.

No, I never contended that I was fired because
of my "beliefs in the paranormal." I contended
that I was fired because of my unconventional scientific beliefs.
"Unconventional" is not synonymous with "paranormal."
As examples of the kinds of things my
website writes about, the article mentions books I have written
on a number of subjects listing "extraterrestrial communication
and crop circles" among these. But keep in mind, my
writings about extraterrestrial communication and crop circles
which are presently on my website were posted in the year 2000,
a full year after I had left the PTO and had nothing to do with
my civil rights complaint against the PTO. The other subjects
-- Yes. Foster then goes on to state:

"Without making a specific determination
about whether beliefs in UFOs and related phenomena are protected,
the EEOC has directed the government to reconsider its decision."

Indeed, the EEOC did
not make a specific determination about beliefs in UFOs and related
paranormal phenomena. But these were not mentioned in my
case, unless Foster is willing to consider the B-2 bomber a UFO.
Whether or not one wishes to consider the B-2 as being
"unidentified," it certainly is not of extraterrestrial
origin. Perhaps the EEOC ruling could help someone who
claims he has been fired because of his interest in UFOs and
paranormal phenomena. But that would be another case, not
mine.

Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN) distorts the
facts.

In their November
30, 2000 article entitled "Crisis in the Workplace"
the Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN) wrote:

"The Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission announced in July that an employee fired for his obsessive
belief in the validity of 'cold fusion' can sue the employer
for 'religious' discrimination."

This is incorrect.
I do not have an "obsessive belief" in the validity
of cold fusion, and the EEOC never said that I did. As
I have explained above, I maintain a detached view with respect
to all scientific observations and theories, including cold fusion.
By stating that I have an obsessive belief in cold fusion,
the Star Tribune incorrectly infers that I throw reason
to the wind and have a blind allegiance to a particular point
of view. I find their allegation highly offensive.
Later the newspaper states:

"...the vast majority of physicists
believe "cold fusion" is bogus. ...Paul A. LaViolette,
worked at the U.S. Patent Office, but there was no evidence that
he was assisting in the patenting of bogus technologies."

Here the paper implies that
"cold fusion" is indeed bogus and that it is a good
thing that LaViolette wasn't examining patents on technologies
that physicists believe is bogus. (What a relief!) Instead
of claiming that I have an obsessive belief in cold fusion, perhaps
that the author of this article should investigate whether physicists
have an obsessive belief that cold fusion is bogus. Hundreds
of scientists have published articles and given papers reporting
positive results with cold fusion experiments. Moreover,
the 1989 MIT study which is one of three studies that the news
media and DOE so frequently cite to denounce cold fusion has,
in fact, been found to favor cold fusion. As Dr. Eugene
Mallove has shown in Issue 24 of Infinite Energy magazine
(March 1999), the physicists involved in that MIT study blatantly
falsified their test data so that it would indicate a negative
result for cold fusion. These scientists must have had
an obsessive belief that cold fusion is bogus considering that
they would go to this extreme. But even after the data
falsification scandal was made public, physicists and DOE administrators
continued to blindly believe that the MIT study had negative
results on cold fusion. So you tell me, who are the ones
with the obsessive belief? Incidentally, the other two
frequently cited studies, done at Caltech and at Harwell, have
also been shown to favor cold fusion when their data is properly
and competently analyzed.